Results 1 to 10 of 24
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
- 12-22-2011 #1
Desktop Fork for GNOME; Yet Another One Bites the Dust...!
Been reading some interesting news and stumbled across several sites referencing to the founder of Linux Mint forking from the GNOME Desktop. I don't know if this is just rumour or if there is an actual backing behind the new forked desktop.
Just look up "Cinnamon Desktop"
or Links here:
Cinnamon: GNOME Shell Fork With A GNOME2-Like Layout ~ Web Upd8: Ubuntu / Linux blog
Gnome Shell Looks Like Gnome 2 – Cinnamon Desktop | Smashing Web
Sounds like the Cinnamon Desktop will be a further improvement on GNOME MGSE. A new hybrid desktop of GNOME 3 and 2. I was always curious and wondered what Mint's Gnome extensions would do, sorta had that gut feeling it might be the start of a fork.
Yet Another one, it appears as though GNOME's new route is quickly losing followers and supporters.
On my count it is up to 3 forks since GNOME 3's release. (The Magic number being 3)
You've got Unity Desktop, MATE, and Cinnamon (if this holds to be true)
That seriously suggests something concerning...! 3 forks from what used to be the Top Desktop Environment in just a few months. That should be ringing alarm bells for GNOME developers.
- 12-22-2011 #2
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
It took years to get KDE 3.x and gnome 2 right, it has taken three years to get KDE 4.x anywhere near right and it will take years to perfect gnome 3. People are simply too fickle, hasty and easily swayed by the sensationalist "technology press"... I liken this to the people that jumped ship from Firefox to Chrome when Firefox changed their release schedule and some of their crappy add ons broke... they went from a browser that releases every six weeks to a browser that releases roughly every six weeks... They then proceeded to flock like so many sheep across every blog, forum, etc telling everyone how Firefox is "dead" and Chrome is what all the kewl kids are now using...
- 12-22-2011 #3
That's the problem for the Gnome team, they've taken a big-bang approach to the upgrade and people find their favourite tools aren't there any more. Of course they're going to complain. Such complaints could have been predicted when these design decisions were made.Linux user #126863 - see http://linuxcounter.net/
- 12-22-2011 #4
I don't think being a ubuntu or mint fan has anything to do with it. It's just coincidence that the primary developers of Ubuntu and Mint who for the most part have used the GNOME desktop as one of there main selling points, are also the ones taking the courage to diverge and produce a desktop they think their users will like, because they have the backing and can afford too.
No... Unity is just a replacement for gnome shell. Cinnamon is also a fork of gnome (3) shell... the only real fork is MATE which is a complete fork of gnome 2.It suggests nothing of the sort in fact.
- 12-22-2011 #5
I would not consider Unity a fork of Gnome, since it was released before Gnome3 and is a complete departure from the Gnome set-up. And yes, there is a problem, with both Gnome and Kde. The people behind both projects have the stupid idea in their heads that more people will be attracted to a GNU-Linux system if their computer screen looks like a mobile telephone screen. Four or six large icons that open full-screen menus, that open more menus then more menus is a functional requirement on a small telephone screen. On a large computer screen that set-up is not only ugly, but functionally counter-productive. Opening a programme with Unity requires navigating through three or four full-screen menus, until one finally gets to the desired application. Very inefficient. People are complaining about the inefficiency, not about change.
A second problem is what many critics refer to as "bloat." The more bells and whistles a desktop environment has, the slower it is. One of the reasons I do not like Kde is the slowness. I have experimented with Kde on Slackware, OpenSuse and PCBSD. All three systems ran slowly, because they were bogged down by the size of Kde. I have not used Gnome3, but one look at the screenshots on the Gnome web-site was enough to convince me to stop using Gnome, because Gnome3 looks suspiciously like Unity (which is absolute garbage).
The third problem is that the developers are not listening to users. It does not matter how many of us say we want a functioning desktop environment that performs the required tasks without getting in the way of using the computer. Developers ignore users and tell us what we want. When people complain, they are told to shut up, use the new monstrosity, and they will grow to like it. The quickly growing popularity of XFCE and LXDE is not a coincidence. A slightly improved XFCE is the kind of thing many, if not most, people want. Doing the job of a DE without getting in the way.
Luckily, I have learned enough to leave all the bells and whistles behind and use Openbox. Of the regular desktop environments available, XFCE is the best but not yet perfect. There will be more Gnome and Kde forks in the future, some good and some bad. Of course, developers and and their fans will still not listen to the rest of us and continue to say we are complaining, simply because we do not like change.
- 12-23-2011 #6
Gnome3 is very, very slow on my eee-pc. So slow that i can't stand to use it. In addition, it just takes far too long to do anything, navigating through multiple screens, and then when I do get an application open, if it has multiple windows, they don't all show, and I have to keep going back to the top left screen to open a menu, and then mouse across the screen again. It's too inefficient, and too slow, so I just quit using it. I still have it installed, and boot into it now and then to try it again, but it's abominable, too slow and too inefficient. It takes way too long to get anything started, and that's all I want from a desktop, a quick way to run programs. I don't care about eye candy, just quick and efficient launching of what I need to work. Gnome3 does not give me that, and that's why I've switched to Xfce. It does.
- 12-23-2011 #7
Just to add my 2 cents, does it matter if gnome 3 is the neatest thing since sliced bread if theuser doesn't like it? What are the developers programming for, greater user convenience and ease of use, or to prove their superiority to us common users? What ever product you are producing, if the benefits aren't visible to the consumer, you have a problem, and if the perceived benefits of the old are better than the new, you will lose customers.Registered Linux user #526930
- 12-23-2011 #8
your right mastonix and randicus.
The gnome developers have let the popularity and support from gnome 2 go to there head, and have forgotten what actually got them their in the first place.
Its not about being resistant to change, in fact its the opposite in most cases. Its not eyecandy first and usability second.
Thats why xfce and gnome 2 are so good. They could be moulded to look like gnome 3 without sacrificing usability. I personally feel unity is better than 3 because at least it has a dock like function for ur needed apps. Its not the best but has potential.
If mint is diverging, it will be interesting to see what they will do.
I'm also interested to see where MATE heads. Other than providing compatibility with gnome. It would good too see them add to it and or improve performance.
- 12-23-2011 #9
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- New Zealand
Lets not forget, there is a method behind this new GUI madness and that's the mobile phone - both Unity and Gnome Shell are wannabe mobile interfaces albeit probably too late. This is fine but I think both camps should be up front and honest about the new departure from the traditional desktop. Of the two designs Gnome Shell wins IMHO and its not that bad on resources overall but, it has a long way to go before I'll use it as an everyday desktop.
I'm currently on Gnome 2.32 with Ubuntu 10.10 which is approaching EOL soon so I have built two Debian alternatives from scratch - one is XFCE 4.8 based and is as good as my current Gnome setup and the other a lighter Openbox setup in order to keep GUI resources to a minimum. Not sure which one will win but I will use either where it suits me to.
I will keep an eye out for Mint's Cinnamon as it develops and see if it can be added to a stock Gnome 3 install and take things from there, as Cinnamon might be the best way to go forward and keep that traditional look.
- 12-23-2011 #10
Gnome 3 or more properly Gnomes Hell is an absolute disaster. The interface is clunky and seems designed to get in the way of any sane work flow. Unity suffers from most of the same flaws but is a slightly lesser disaster. And yes, I've used both. This is different to the KDE 4 issues as they seemed mainly due to performance and compatibility with existing applications. Cinnamon looks interesting but I don't know if I will use anything based off Gnome 3, purely because of the attitude of the developers. Again suffered by Unity.
Canonical have (in the face of people leaving in droves for Linux Mint) that Unity is a fight they must win.
Gnome foundation say we know best. You are wrong.
Clement Lefebvre is one clever dude. He knows that the influx of new users is mainly due to the new interfaces being so awful and being clever, he listens to the community. He works with the Mate Team to improve that that desktop as a project leader I believe, is considering a specific Mate version of Mint and working on MGSE and Cinnamon. Mint now regularly tops Ubuntu on DIstrowatch, scores higher in reviews so must be doing something right.
XFCE is a wonderful alternative and having used it on my desktop for a several months, I can't remember what I missed from Gnome. Finally, when charged with being anti-change, I always say, perhaps glibly, that I'm not anti-change but I am pro-gress.